Federal judges should be remembered for impartial justice, not championing specific groups
Source: Josh Blackman. "Should A Federal Judge Be Remembered For "Champion[ing] the Underdog and the Uncelebrated"?." February 18, 2026. reason.com
The Gist
The author argues that judges should be neutral referees who treat everyone equally, not advocates for particular groups. He uses Judge Pratt's partisan comments and obituary as examples of how some judges inappropriately see themselves as champions for certain causes rather than impartial arbiters of the law.
Conclusion
Federal judges should be remembered for treating all parties equally under the law, not for 'championing the underdog and the uncelebrated'
Premises
- Judge Robert Pratt made inappropriate partisan statements about Trump's pardons, demonstrating a lack of judicial discretion
- Pratt's obituary praised him for 'championing the underdog and the uncelebrated,' which suggests bias rather than impartiality
- The principle of 'equal justice under law' requires judges to be blindfolded to party status - everyone should get a fair shake
- Justice Thurgood Marshall exemplified proper judicial conduct by stating that once he became a judge, he was no longer an advocate for any cause but simply decided cases
- Warren Court precedents that put 'a thumb on the scale' in favor of underdogs (like Footnote 4 from Carolene Products) are problematic and should be eliminated
Assumptions
- Judicial impartiality is more important than achieving specific social outcomes
- Judges who advocate for particular groups or causes compromise their judicial integrity
- The Warren Court's approach of favoring certain groups represents a departure from proper judicial conduct
- Public statements and obituary descriptions reflect a judge's actual judicial philosophy and conduct